In both the capstone and emergent lit. class we have been talking about Giambattista Vico. Vico talks of New Science or metaphysics. There is the age of gods, heroes, and men (a sort of class system). Our emergent lit. group has been assigned to think of ways to represent the actions and speach of gods and heroes. It is impossible to know how the class systems above you think. As for the age of gods, I would ask, would they talk about greek mythology? Then answer, no, men wrote greek mythology, the gods were only actors. They probably don't care about their stories. Then I asked, would they say anything? If all is understood, what's the use of language. Maybe, but that wouldn't be a fun presentation. Today in class, I had an "ah" epiphany. Prospero, dear Prospero, he is our metaphor for gods. If Prospero has been around since the beginning of time, (since he is the Shamen in the cave) then he is the closest thing to god-like that I, being a human, can understand. Also, how about heroes? Heroes are easier because they are closer to the age of men. I was thinking today of Samuel Beckett's character who kills off characters. As an author you have the power to decide your character's fate. This ability gives heroes a divine capability. The power to have a power over something else reminded me of what Taylor said in class about To the Lighthouse. How bending over a tide pool and shadowing the light is an act of power. The action of a hero is to depict human behavior in some small way. Fully understanding the divine is impossible. Fully understanding a hero is closer to possible, but difficult. One must breach the invisible curtain from humanity to heroism. Here's the epiphany. Instead of racking my brain to understand the impossible, I need symbols. I need a character that symbolizes the divine, Prospero, and the hero, Becket. By having symbols, I can better comprehend what actions and speach a god or hero might make.